ON EVOLUTION - II
1. In a truly aristocratic civilization, such as the early phase of ancient Greece, stoicism is the religious ideal, because pain tends to vastly predominate over pleasure, and the courageous endurance of pain is consequently regarded as the noblest posture. Beginning in an absolute phase of proton domination, this negative civilization proceeds, in due course of pagan time, towards a more relative integrity, in which hedonism, or the pursuit of pleasure, comes to be regarded as the chief good. It switches, in other words, from the proton side of an atomic divide to its electron side, from negative to positive sensations, as relative to the minority electron content of the flesh. Thus it progresses from a soulful to a pseudo-spiritual bias, and with this progression comes a more marked distinction between an elite - formerly stoical - of pleasure-seekers and a mass of toiling sufferers, in contrast to the more general diffusion of pain prevailing hitherto. The elite, mainly aristocratic, switch from their proton origins to a kind of electron-biased identification, because pleasure pertains to the electron side of the flesh, which is, of course, its positive side. Thus, in reflecting the atomic constitution of the flesh, sensual civilization in its higher phase reserves the pursuit of pleasure for that tiny minority, who function as electron equivalents, while simultaneously obliging the vast majority - peasants, soldiers, slaves, etc. - to function as proton equivalents in a generally painful existence. The elite are what they are precisely because their lifestyles are morally superior to those of the toiling, suffering masses - positive and pleasurable rather than negative and painful. If stoicism was the moral ideal of the earliest aristocrats, one not widely shared by the masses, then hedonism became the ideal of their more fortunate successors in the relative phase of pagan civilization.
2. With the development of Catholic civilization out of the painful Dark Ages in Western Europe, we find a similar dichotomy between an elite and a toiling mass, because, for all its moral progress, Catholic civilization is still a predominantly sensual civilization and must accordingly reflect the ratio of protons to electrons in the flesh, with, paradoxically, the upper classes functioning in an electron-biased context and the lower classes - peasants, artisans, soldiers - remaining akin to proton equivalents. From being exclusively autocratic, as in ancient
3. However that may be, the disparity between refined pleasure and unrefined pain in early Western civilization, between admiration for the Beautiful and endurance of ugliness, was but a reflection of the ratio of electrons to protons in the flesh, since Catholic civilization was essentially sensual. Not so the proton-biased revolt against this extreme relativity, which took the form of the Reformation and signified a 'fall' from beauty and pleasure to evil and hate, that is to say, from the positive side of the flesh to the negative side of the heart, from the higher side of a sensual plane to the lower side of an emotional one, the inception of ethical civilization in the Protestant revolt, the beginnings of a truly relative Christian civilization. For, unlike the flesh, the atomic constitution of the heart, that seat of the emotions, is, if anything, more balanced, with a slight preponderance of electrons over protons, if one is prepared to believe, as many people would, that love is a stronger emotion than hate; though, naturally, this will depend on the individual, not least of all in terms of his class integrity as conditioned, in large measure, by environment. Suffice it to say that, for a majority of small-town and suburban dwellers, love would be considered the stronger emotion, if only marginally so! Yet the emergence of Protestant civilization reflected a progression from the outer to the inner, from the flesh to the heart, from refined pleasure to negative emotions, though it didn't, of course, emerge without a bitter struggle with autocratic and theocratic precedent, not least of all in England, where a bloody civil war was necessary to shift the balance of power towards the bourgeoisie.
4. However, if love was the religious ideal of the Protestants, it didn't automatically follow that everyone would experience or uphold it. On the contrary, there were plenty of people more disposed to hate, and not only among the masses! For if the heart is approximately balanced between electrons and protons, it follows that an emotional civilization will reflect this balance, and so divide power or sovereignty between the bourgeoisie and the (newly-emergent) proletariat, as signified by the two-party system, with the haters, or representatives of evil, on one side, and the lovers, or representatives of good, on the other, as between Liberals and Tories, the democratic compromise of an ethical civilization, with an emotional Church behind it. What began in evil, as a hatred of beauty and autocracy, progresses only slowly towards good, as a love of justice and democracy. But this civilization remains relative, divided between disparate interests, as between capitalism and socialism, electron-biased Tories and proton-biased Liberals.
5. Since Protestant civilization was centred in an ethical compromise, so the revolt against it was post-ethical, the reflection of another 'fall', this time from the positive side of the emotions to the negative side of the feelings, from the heart to the old brain, from love to sadness. This Marxist-Leninist revolt gave birth to a new civilization, with Russia as its cradle, and we may define it as a feeling civilization, extreme relative in constitution, the relativistic antithesis to the Roman Catholic civilization of the Middle Ages. If this latter reflected the ratio of protons to electrons in the flesh, then Marxist-Leninist civilization did the same with regard to the old brain where, we may safely assume, electrons will generally be found to preponderate over protons, if not greatly than at least comfortably - to a greater extent, in other words, than in the heart. As each civilization goes through two phases, corresponding to a 'fall' and a 'rise', it need not surprise us that the civilization in question did so too, beginning with the proton dictatorship of Lenin and his Bolsheviks, and proceeding, via World War Two, to a People’s democracy, in which sovereignty was vested in the proletarian majority. If the first phase, dominated by a proton elite, is characterized by sadness, then with the emergence of a higher phase, corresponding to the majority electron content of the old brain, we get the ideal of happiness, relative to the attainment of a classical goal through positive feelings. Just as Protestant civilization was ideologically superior, during its higher phase, to the preceding Catholic civilization, so now we find that the Marxist-Leninist civilization of the former Soviet Union was likewise ideologically superior to the Protestant one of the West, since beyond love and ethics. If it was originally dominated by the Marxist illusion, with its call to world revolution, it subsequently became more partial to the relative truth of neo-Buddhist quiescence in détente, of peaceful co-existence with the capitalist West. From being militant during its first phase, it became moderate or, at any rate, civil during its second. From a proton dictatorship in the name of the proletariat, it evolved to an electron-biased democracy. Far from being equivalent to Western socialist parties, the prevailing party of Russia is their antithesis, an electron as opposed to a proton affair. It represents the electron status quo, not the proton grievances of the hateful slender minority in bourgeois states!
6. Since a relative absolutism in hedonism preceded the extreme relativity of Roman Catholic civilization in the Middle Ages, so a relative absolutism in LSD-induced visionary awareness will have to follow the extreme relativity of Communist civilization, if there is to be any real evolutionary progress towards the Millennium, that post-human epoch in time. Thus one is speaking of another 'fall', germane to the inception of a new and, indeed, ultimate civilization, this time from the happiness classicism of mature Socialism to the visionary awareness of LSD tripping, from the majority electron content of the old brain to the minority proton content of the new brain, and the consequent emergence of another elite to lead the masses in the name of Social Transcendentalism and its concomitance of evolutionary truth. Just as the atomic constitution of the old brain signifies an imbalance favouring the electron - if, as many people would agree, happiness is deeper than sadness - and thus represents an evolutionary progression beyond the marginal electron imbalance of the heart, so the ratio of electrons to protons in the new brain may be assumed to far outbalance anything found elsewhere, including its immediate evolutionary precursor, and to a degree whereby an antithesis with the flesh may be inferred. Consequently the era of LSD tripping will be superseded, in due time, by an era of hypermeditation, or meditation solely centred on awareness and conducted, via the aid of special harnesses suspended from overhead pulleys, at a vertical, and hence transcendental, remove from the ground; an era which will correspond to a progression from the minority proton content of the new brain to its (vastly) majority electron content, as religion becomes truly absolute and society, far from embracing a People’s democracy (as in socialist states), increasingly comes to reflect this religious absolutism to an extent whereby any degree or form of proton control or identification becomes both unnecessary and irrelevant, the need for a Leader, in the first-phase sense, no longer valid, since society will have become too firmly set on course for the post-Human Millennium to require any such dictatorial guidance.
7. Just as the aristocracy, including the monarch, are distinct from the peasantry in a royalist society, so a meritocracy, including the Leader, must be considered distinct from the proletariat in a Centrist society (as we may call that which is based around the concept of the Centre, as signifying the omega-most sensible arrangement of society), and thus function as proton equivalents vis-à-vis the People, serving their interests as well as those of the Leader. If the aristocracy of the Catholic civilization of Western Europe became electron equivalents, to be served by the proton masses, then the meritocracy of a Social Transcendentalist civilization in any future Centrist society must serve the masses and follow the directives of their Leader, in whom sovereignty would be vested no less absolutely than (it was) in the autocratic monarch. If aristocracy and meritocracy are antithetical, then so, too, are the peasantry and the proletariat, the former functioning in autocratic terms as proton equivalents, the latter corresponding, in a truly theocratic society, to electron equivalents; the former serving the aristocracy, the latter being served by the meritocracy. Thus the Leader does not rule the people like a monarch, but, as his title suggests, leads them. He leads because he is out front, because he represents evolutionary truth, and this empowers him to dictate. He is no mere People’s representative, accountable to the People. For he is not of the People but antithetical to them - a proton equivalent vis-à-vis an electron mass.
8. Where, on the other hand, the people are sovereign, as in the more emotional context of parliamentary democracy, they are divided between proton and electron sides, corresponding to proletariat and bourgeoisie, and will elect a representative to govern on their behalf. Such a representative will not, of course, represent all the electorate, but solely those to whom he corresponds on whichever elemental terms. Thus an elected proton equivalent, or member of the left-wing party, will govern on behalf of the workers, whereas an elected electron equivalent, or member of the right-wing party, will govern on behalf of the bourgeoisie, provided, however, that his party is in office. In either case, the elected representative will be accountable to his supporters, since he corresponds to them.
9. Where, by contrast, there is no such elemental correspondence - of protons to protons or of electrons to electrons - there can be no accountability, and so the sovereign, be he monarch or dictator, is comparatively free to go his own way, whether in terms of his own interests or those of evolutionary progress and, by implication, what is best in the People - namely, their spiritual potential. As an electron equivalent, the monarch paradoxically rules a proton mass of peasants, soldiers, slaves, etc., whereas the dictator, corresponding to a proton equivalent, no less paradoxically leads an electron mass of proletarians, police, military police, etc. I say 'paradoxically' with some justification, since it is logically more in the nature of a proton equivalent to rule, indeed to tyrannize, and of an electron equivalent to serve himself, which, to some extent, each type does. The earliest kings, or tyrants, were, of course, almost invariably proton equivalents; for early pagan society was by no means atomic but, rather, subatomic, since that which is atomic presupposes evolution to the relative and, in particular, to a democratic level of society, whether physically or emotionally. Yet most Western kings, certainly in the Roman Catholic civilization of Medieval Europe, had effectively become electron equivalents, given, in conjunction with the aristocracy generally, to the pursuit of pleasure and to admiration of the Beautiful, and consequently they were no longer truly representative of the aristocratic, with its stoical foundations.
10. Doubtless 'rule' is the Western equivalent or successor to pagan tyranny, just as 'government' appears to be the democratic equivalent or successor to feudal rule. A democratic politician, whose party is in office, will both represent and govern, representing his constituents or, more correctly, his supporters in the local constituency, but governing the mass of those who did not vote for him and who are accordingly his elemental antithesis. By contrast, the dictator of a Fascist/Centrist society will lead, or serve, the People in his capacity as a proton equivalent vis-à-vis a newly-established electron mass. Yet this leadership will sometimes paradoxically entail the metaphorical cracking of a coercive whip! To speak of him in this connection as a ruler, however, would simply be to mistakenly regard him, in cruder terms, as an autocrat, or someone who rules (tyrannizes) over the masses in his own and/or fellow aristocrats' material interests. Quite the contrary, he will have the People's interests at heart, either soulfully, as in a Socialist dictatorship, or with regard to their spiritual progress, as in a Fascist and, hopefully to a much greater extent in the future, Centrist (Social Transcendental) one. Whereas the first kind of dictatorship eventually leads to a Socialist democracy, where a particle-biased electron proletariat are politically sovereign, the second kind of dictatorship will eventually lead to a Centrist theocracy, where the proletariat, become classless in an electron-wavicle equivalent, are religiously sovereign. It is all the difference between the old and the new brains, between spiritual politics and political religion. In the Socialist case, one may claim that dictatorial leadership is by the autocratic intelligentsia, since they correspond to the minority proton content of the old brain, whereas in the Centrist case it is by the theocratic intelligentsia, who correspond to the minority proton content of the new brain. The governmental representatives of the People, who come in-between this, will generally correspond, as democratic intelligentsia, to the electron/proton (neutron?) content of the midbrain. The collapse of the Soviet Union has already demonstrated the progression from State Socialist autocracy to Social Democracy, and, hopefully, a future Centrist revolution in Ireland or elsewhere will demonstrate, in due time, the emergence of a Social Theocracy from republican democracy.
11. Within the Western Christian framework we can list the evolution of divinities - primary and secondary - as follows: the Father, the Blessed Virgin, the Anti-Virgin, the Son, the Anti-Christ, the Second Coming, and the Holy Ghost. If the Father corresponds to the autocratic spectrum, then the Blessed Virgin corresponds to the Catholic inception of the theocratic spectrum, after which the Lutheran schism gives birth to an heretical subdivision of the theocratic spectrum in early Protestantism. From being negative in its first phase, Protestantism becomes positive in its second phase, largely through the influence of Calvin, who might be defined (in contrast to Luther's status as the Anti-Virgin) as the Pro-Christ, and thus attains to a classical perfection in Christianity-proper, as germane to the religion of love, with Christ as its cynosure.
12. Further along this relative theocratic spectrum, however, we encounter the Marxist rebellion against the practical implementation, in liberalism and capitalism, of Protestant theology, which leads, via Lenin, to the birth of a new religion, based on the teachings of the Anti-Christ, in Soviet Communism, the first phase of which, under the dictatorships of Lenin and Stalin, is negative, the second phase, largely in consequence of Khrushchev's subsequent influence, becoming positive with the attainment - under, first, Gorbachev and then, more completely, Yeltsin - of a classical perfection in which People’s democracy and socialism are the political and economic concomitants, respectively, of what had been Marxist-Leninist theology. This does not imply, however, that Khrushchev corresponds to a Second Coming, though there is of course scope for various interpretations and generalizations in this largely speculative sphere of historical determinism! Neither need we seriously attach such a status to Hitler, if we are basing our contentions on strictly Western theological progressions from the Blessed Virgin to the Second Coming, which necessarily remain sketchy; though Hitler certainly signified a revolt against Soviet Communism, if in its first, or Bolshevik, phase. The only phase or time during which such a revolt is historically valid is when it is against the classical phase of a preceding civilization, so that we get a 'fall', as with Luther and Marx, from the classical perfections of mature Catholicism and Protestantism respectively, a 'fall', in the paradoxical nature of evolution, to the negative, or romantic, side of a higher moral plane. But we should not overlook the fact that both the Anti-Virgin and the Anti-Christ pertain to the heretical subdivision of the theocratic spectrum, because no anti-divinity could legitimately pertain to its main or absolute part, only the positive divinities of the Blessed Virgin and the Second Coming respectively. So instead of being a revolt against classical Communism, the Second Coming, regarded from a Western standpoint, would be an extension of the truly theocratic spectrum into a new and final religion, the True World Religion of Social Transcendentalism - a religion which could only lead, in due time, to the ultimate divinity of the Holy Spirit, with the culmination of all evolution.
13. The evolutionary sketch outlined above is not, of course, ideal. For the Christian framework is limited, and accordingly fails to do proper justice to the evolution of religion considered in its totality, as a global phenomenon. I have already used other frameworks in my speculations, the most comprehensive being that which extends the theocratic spectrum beyond an antithetical equivalent (Second Coming) of the Blessed Virgin in a straight antithesis (involving opposite spectra) between one absolute and another, such as the True World Messiah and Moses. For, after all, Western civilization begins on an early-stage grand-bourgeois level with Roman Catholicism, which is necessarily relative when compared with the absolute inception of civilization in pagan antiquity. Similarly, the concept of a Second Coming, pertaining to this Christian framework, is relative (if on extreme terms) in comparison with the absolute culmination of civilization still to-come, with the transcendental future. Of what use is such a concept to a person of Hindu or Buddhist or Moslem or Judaic descent? He will regard it as applicable to Christianity and to Christianity alone, and would take umbrage at the prospect of having to abandon his own religion for the sake of another, no less parochial one. Clearly, a clean break with all parochial, so-called world religions is desirable, if people are eventually to come round to an ultimate world religion. Now this can only be achieved by reference to a True World Messiah, a Jewish concept transcending everything parochial, a concept appertaining to Judaism no less than to the historical desire of the Jewish people for a religion that will transcend all others and unite mankind in a common faith. I cannot say that I am particularly partial, in this respect, to the concept of a Second Coming, even if, in the paradoxical order of things in this relative world, it may have some value vis-à-vis Christians and, in particular, Catholic peoples.
14. Regarded, then, from a more comprehensive point-of-view, civilized evolution proceeds from an aristocratic absolutism in stoical antiquity to an aristocratic relativity, or relative absolutism, in hedonistic antiquity, that is to say, from a romantic to a classical phase within a pagan context. Then comes the early-stage grand-bourgeois phase of civilization in Roman Catholicism, though not before the Dark Ages have paved the way for this new classicism in a kind of relative absolutism of aristocratic tyranny. Against this we get a late-stage grand-bourgeois rebellion through early Protestantism, and this in turn leads to a fresh classicism in bourgeois Puritanism. An early-stage petty-bourgeois revolt against mature Protestantism is the next logical evolutionary step and, manifesting in early Communism, this duly leads to classical Communism in a late-stage petty-bourgeois/early proletarian context of People’s democracy, which, under the ideological sanctions firstly of détente and then of glasnost, perestroika, etc., is prepared to peacefully co-exist with the bourgeois West, just as the Protestant West was prepared to co-exist, if not always peacefully then at least grudgingly, with the Roman Catholic civilization of an earlier time. This finally brings us to the transcendental future, with civilized evolution again manifesting in two phases - the first, or romantic, phase with regard to the relative awareness of LSD-induced visionary experience, and the second, or classical, phase with regard to the absolute awareness of hypermeditation, both of these antithetical to the equivalent phases of pagan antiquity, LSD tripping to hedonism and hypermeditation to stoicism. So just as pagan antiquity was beneath the Western Christian pale, so transcendental futurity will be above it, the True World Messiah appertaining to a classless absolutism as opposed to a petty-bourgeois relativity. In between come the Catholic, Protestant, and Communist civilizations, as germane to grand-bourgeois, bourgeois, and petty-bourgeois stages of evolution, their classical ideals refined sensuality, love, and happiness respectively.
